Sola Scriptura - unifier?

[MT1926]

Let me put it this way:

Agreed corruption can always occur within a hierarchical system. However, that system is in place because in the end someone always has to have a final say for society to continue to progress. Because it goes both ways. If the government doesn’t have the final say on what Truth the Constitution is giving us then the Constitution can only convey what the person interpreting the document wants it to say. Which would mean instead of a few people taking advantage now you would have millions taking advantage.

Said another way - is the Catholic Church better off with its laity able to read and study the Bible?

This doesn’t really make any sense. You seem to be making a straw man argument here. You’ve been on this web site long enough to know that Catholics do read and study the Bible don’t you? The Catholic Church even goes so far as allowing us to interpret the Bible for ourselves. It is far more freeing than you could ever imagine.

Not sure if you’ve heard this… The Catholic Church defines her teachings on Faith and Morals and something like 7 verses of scripture. From there she tells us go for it. Delve as deep as you want into scripture, self interpret every single verse of scripture (except these 7). If it deepens your faith in Christ and helps you continue on your spiritual journey of perseverance til the end, it is a good thing. However, here are the teachings on faith and morals, your interpretations need to not go against any of these teachings because in doing so you just might step off the narrow road.

You can’t imagine how freeing that is.

Scripture isn’t an instruction manual it is a tool to get us to where we are going. However, someone has to be in charge of the proper use of that tool or the work won’t get done.

I like tool analogies because I am a self taught carpenter. I personally picked up all the tools and taught myself how to built anything from fine furniture to total house gut and remodels, doing 100% of the work myself. The one thing I learned along the way was the majority of what I learned came from looking at the end product seeing all of my mistakes and doing a better job next time. Well it doesn’t work that way with salvation. It is one and done, I don’t get a second chance to go back and correct my mistakes. This is why I leave the work (interpreting) to the ones who have apprenticed under Christ and His Apostles and their Successors for 2000 years. They saw the end result 2000 years ago and know what mistakes need to be corrected before we makes them. All I know is I haven’t seen the end result and for that matter (I mean no offense) none of the reformers ever saw the end result.

On a final note, Catholics have a duty to point out when those who are over them teach in error.

Sorry so long, I just love thinking about wood working, brings me closer to my Boss, He to was a carpenter.

God Bless

 

[goout]

mcq72:

And another note is, Scripture is not “equal to” anything, nor is Tradition “equal to” Scripture. They are part of the living organism that is the Church. It’s like saying the brain is equal to the heart. They are both unique aspects of a living organism.

And we have one head, one cornerstone, and then foundation of the apostles, to which generations of saints have been added as living stones. I beg to differ if one thinks the generations after are as normative, even infallibly,/unconditionally, as the head and His apostles , His Word.

This makes the erroneous assumption that Inspiration is sourced in the individual.
Christ is the source and summit of the Church, and since he is alive…his presence in the Church, and for those in the Church, is every bit as alive as it was for St Peter.

I’m going to say again that fundamental misunderstandings about Christ are the root of this problem. His Incarnation, his resurrection, the living Community of Saints.
So many of the poster here seem to believe Christ is sort of alive, but not really efficacious, and that he is distant from his people. That simply can’t be for a believing Christian.

 

[mcq72]

I’ve lost count how many times I’ve asked for the word tradition is defined and all I get in return is the run around like you give me here.

So sorry you feel that way. Not sure how agreeing with you, that “tradition” in word or definition, is not there (Lutheran confession…upon a quick read)is a run around. What more can I do than agree with you ?

All of the run around I get or changing the subject when I ask questions is my main reason for remaining Catholic.

Did not know that you remaining Catholic hinged upon knowing the succinctness of say Lutheranism. I mean you know about Occam and Biel and Thomism (which is a first hearing of such for me), how is it that you would not understand (not believe or condone) how Lutherans define themselves, or how SS even came to be?

Vague answers meant to belittle the person asking the question are of no benefit to anyone.

Apologies for seeming to be vague. Was Socrates, or Jesus, being vague and no use to folk by answering a question with another question, or speaking in parables ?

Again, how can agreeing with you be vague, even belittling ?

Like I said vague opinions that add nothing to the conversation.

Vague opinions or contrary opinions ? If my thoughts on why they(Lutherans) left out word “tradition” add nothing , then I am left to wonder if it is because you already know why.

Maybe you an Jon need to have a conversation and see if you guys agree on the meaning of SS.

Well Jon and I are not the official Lutheran Confessions, just as Occam and Biel were not the official CC cathechism.

Actually I believe from all posts we pretty much agree on SS, even though I am not Lutheran by church membership, just as i agree with many things Catholic, though not a church member.

 

[commenter]

The failure of the Catholic Church at that time to maintain continuity with the Tradition of the early Church was precisely the problem.

I think you meant “alleged” or “perceived” failure.
Obviously abuses in pastoral practice don’t equate to discontinuity with Tradition. Private interpretation of Tradition leads to contradictory dead ends. If you reject the living Magisterium you will, in the long run, reject the (magisterium filtered) tradition of the 16th century, 4th century, or whenever.

 

[mcq72]

This makes the erroneous assumption that Inspiration is sourced in the individual.

thank you , and strongly agree that Inspiration is not from the individual. In fact such living inspiration as you put it is central to our reformation. My take is that Inspiration that was to be living in all its members became enshrined in a magisterium, in an office, in tradition, separating such living inspiration from lay people.

i think we misunderstand not the living Inspiration that is in the church and every member, but on what is normative inspiration. All churches have norms, . So for example, a person has a Marion apparition, with messages. The CC is careful to ‘investigate" and check for authenticity , which can only be known if one already has "norm’’

Christ is indeed alive and well, and within our bosom. We are not orphaned. We have His mind, “We know all things”, as John says in his epistle, having an unction from Him. Yet He forms Himself in us, as He did the apostles, as He demonstrates thru His writings thru them. This (Jesus and the apostles, of which we only have the written) is normative to the Christian. I also believe any successors, clergy or lay, have to be conformed to the normative foundation. Again, we are living stones .

So many of the poster here seem to believe Christ is sort of alive, but not really efficacious, and that he is distant from his people. That simply can’t be for a believing Christian.

Totally agree. Sometimes people seem to discount being part of that living Inspiration because it can lead to division, and it can (.We are not robots). So they then rely on something that may seem more constant, and rest on an institution, leaving the thinking to them (which is different than "normative’ thinking , checking against) Like taking only milk and not meat. Taking what someone else has experienced in Christ, what someone else has discerned, instead of like the Bereans to see then if it isn’t so. Like Jesus asks us all, "who do you say that I am ? (not your parents, or rabbis, or magisterium, )… We must know Him, the living Inspiration, else He will say, “depart from me , I never knew you”.

 

[sallybutler]

I know that the Holy Spirit dwells within me. I also know that I need help in understanding what He wants me to do. Being rather pigheaded, I can fix my thoughts on something that sort of sounds like what is right, but is far off the field completely, it isn’t even in left field anymore. That is why, like just about everyone else here, I rely on the teachings and traditions of those who have gone before me. In my case it is the Church and Her teachings.

 

[TULIPed]

I’ve obviously done a terrible job of explaining my point. One more try and I’ll surrender.

I always like to think about people’s motives when they do something with which I don’t agree. Where are their hearts? Perhaps - even if they’re wrong - there’s something to be learned.

So - in the case of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura - what were the motivations driving the doctrine? How, after 1600 years did the doctrine - wayward as it is - become one of the driving principles behind the Reformation?

I would respectfully suggest that there might have been a bit of a disconnect - maybe wrongly perceived - between what the Church at that time was teaching and practicing, and what was perceived to be in scripture. I say perceived, because we’re obviously still arguing about it today.

In any case, my point was definitely not that Catholics don’t read the Bible today or that they don’t think scripture’s important, etc. etc. I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading the Catholic Catechism, and so I respect and admire how seriously Catholics take the Bible.

 

[goout]

I’ve obviously done a terrible job of explaining my point. One more try and I’ll surrender.

I always like to think about people’s motives when they do something with which I don’t agree. Where are their hearts? Perhaps - even if they’re wrong - there’s something to be learned.

So - in the case of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura - what were the motivations driving the doctrine? How, after 1600 years did the doctrine - wayward as it is - become one of the driving principles behind the Reformation?

I would respectfully suggest that there might have been a bit of a disconnect - maybe wrongly perceived - between what the Church at that time was teaching and practicing, and what was perceived to be in scripture. I say perceived, because we’re obviously still arguing about it today.

In any case, my point was definitely not that Catholics don’t read the Bible today or that they don’t think scripture’s important, etc. etc. I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading the Catholic Catechism, and so I respect and admire how seriously Catholics take the Bible.

Many times what drives people away is abuse. Abuse of authority, abuse of doctrines, false idols, just plain bad behavior.
And that’s a constant with human beings. Even today people are driven out of our churches toward a perceived more authentic Christianity. But that’s a false impulse, because the Church is composed of flawed human beings starting with St Peter, who denied Christ. Infallible behavior isn’t the mark of the true Church.

The point isn’t to find a better Christianity by clinging to the bible, or by clinging to piety or liturgy, the point is to accept that we are called to be one in Christ. And knowing who Christ is we accept all that entails, which must include recognizing the legitimate charisms given to flawed people. And the continuous Tradition living in that Body. (out of which breathes the scriptures)

 

[mcq72]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

lol…what i do to people?

 

[mcq72]

Agree. just don’t capitalize tradition, but definitely capitalize the Holy Spirit within.

 

[TULIPed]

he point isn’t to find a better Christianity by clinging to the bible, or by clinging to piety or liturgy, the point is to accept that we are called to be one in Christ.

Amen. We are called to be one in Christ. May it happen sooner or later by His grace and power.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The failure of the Catholic Church at that time to maintain continuity with the Tradition of the early Church was precisely the problem.

I think you meant “alleged” or “perceived” failure.
Obviously abuses in pastoral practice don’t equate to discontinuity with Tradition. Private interpretation of Tradition leads to contradictory dead ends. If you reject the living Magisterium you will, in the long run, reject the (magisterium filtered) tradition of the 16th century, 4th century, or whenever.

How about “apparent” failure.
As to the broader point, the obvious question is who is actually following the Tradition of the 4th century. I keep wondering if the answer is no one here in the west.

 

[Addai]

Agree. just don’t capitalize tradition, but definitely capitalize the Holy Spirit within.

i’m just going to point something out.

A definition of “tradition” (Paradosis) from the Greek online lexicon ( G3862 - paradosis - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv) )

1. giving up, giving over
2. the act of giving up
3. the surrender of cities
   2. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
   1. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
   ** 2. of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence**

The second definition is what is used by the Bible in paradosis. And if you pay close attention this actually does apply to Scripture. A number of scriptures existed as oral tradition prior to being written down, the canonization process, the scribal tradition to transmit them and so on. So yes Tradition should be capitalized. Note this term could also apply to Church counsels like found in the book of Acts where they decided whether the gentiles needed to be circumcised.

So yes there definitely are times where tradition should be given a capital T even by Lexical and Biblical standards!

 

[mcq72]

i’m just going to point something out.

A definition of “tradition” (Paradosis) from the Greek online lexicon ( https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g3862 )

1. giving up, giving over
2. the act of giving up
3. the surrender of cities
   2. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
   1. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
   4.* 2. of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence**

The second definition is what is used by the Bible in paradosis. And if you pay close attention this actually does apply to Scripture. A number of scriptures existed as oral tradition prior to being written down, the canonization process, the scribal tradition to transmit them and so on. So yes Tradition should be capitalized. Note this term could also apply to Church counsels like found in the book of Acts where they decided whether the gentiles needed to be circumcised.

So yes there definitely are times where tradition should be given a capital T even by Lexical and Biblical standards!

Interesting. Kind of like the Word of God can be oral and then written. I do believe God has his spokespersons throughout the ages, our sort of heroes in the faith, like Athanasius. Now I consider some later heroes as Hus, or Tyndale or Luther and Calvin. Shall I capitalize some of what they handed over.

As to the Jewish understanding, that is debatable . I agree that some Jews see their Talmud, their "commentaries’’ as authoritative as their Writ, but others surely do not. But it is also clear that Jesus used the word paradosis many times in a negative sense , and certainly not a capital t.

So, right back to where we started from, can a church carte blanche declare that everything on faith and morals is a capital T, excluding all other churches ? That really is the crux of the matter, between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants.

But I agree perhaps sometimes a capital t would be nice, that someone indeed is speaking for God on a matter in any given time, a man for all seasons so to speak (Sir Thomas More).

 

[mcq72]

As to the broader point, the obvious question is who is actually following the Tradition of the 4th century. I keep wondering if the answer is no one here in the west

and maybe go negative in the other direction also (east), then we all be naked of perceived developed tradition, and resting solely on the grace and mercies of our Savior, or at least resting only on what is universal to all…not a bad place to be…but be of good cheer brother

 

[Addai]

As to the Jewish understanding, that is debatable

It’s not really debatable. Just compare the Lexicon paradosis to this entry regarding of tradition in Hebrew from a Jewish encylopedia.

TRADITION (Heb. מָסֹרֶת). The term tradition derives from the Latin tradere , which means “to transmit” or “to give over.” Generally, it refers to beliefs, doctrines, customs, ethical and moral standards, and cultural values and attitudes which are transmitted orally or by personal example. Under this designation, the process of transmission itself is also included. Theologically, in Judaism, tradition is the name applied to the unwritten code of law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Terms​

Masoret is the general name for tradition. It is found in Ezekiel 20:37 and means originally “bond” or “fetter.” Tradition is the discipline which establishes the correct practice and interpretation of the *Torah and was therefore regarded as a hedge or fetter about the Law (Avot 3:14). Since this knowledge was handed down by successive generations, it was also associated with the Hebrew word masor , denoting “to give over.” In the talmudic literature, the term masoret is used to include all forms of tradition, both those which relate to the Bible and those which concern custom, law, historical events, folkways, and other subjects. Different kinds of traditions were given special names. Traditions which specified the vocalization, punctuation, spelling, and correct form of the biblical text were called * masorah . Those legal traditions which were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai and were later preserved in writing, were known as * Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai (“law given to Moses on Sinai”). A legal tradition which was handed down by word of mouth, but did not necessarily emanate from Sinai, was called shemu’ah (“a report”). Religious and general traditions which became binding as result of long observance by successive generations were termed * minhag (“custom”). Prophetic traditions described in the books of the prophets and Hagiographa were known as Divrei Kabbalah (“words of tradition”). Esoteric and mystical traditions concerning God and the world transmitted to the elect and then passed down through the ages were called *Kabbalah, from kibbel (“to receive”).

taken from Tradition

 

[mcq72]

Thank you…I believe then I was referencing “masor” and masoret, the fetter of the written Torah, and was it equally as authoritative as the Torah…The article does not differentiate or allude to any level of authority relative to Torah, whether the t in tradition is sometimes capital and sometimes not from our perspective or discission.

 

[MT1926]

I’ve obviously done a terrible job of explaining my point. One more try and I’ll surrender.

I’m sorry maybe I jumped to a conclusion here? But when you said…

Would not making the Constitution accessible to more people tend to hold the governing more accountable to the governed?

It sure seemed like you were trying to say The Catholic Church has no one holding her accountable because no one has access.

The only thing si would like to add to think about is all of the theologians of the past 2000 years. Many of them held the Church accountable, many disagreed with Her and there were quite a few heretics along the way that brought her to a point of having to define doctrine, basically put it in writing which would hold her even more accountable if she tried to change something in the future.

So - in the case of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura - what were the motivations driving the doctrine? How, after 1600 years did the doctrine - wayward as it is - become one of the driving principles behind the Reformation?

So what do you think Luthers motive was? Like I said I haven’t really studied Luther but from reading his 95 theses and a few of his other writings he comes across as a man battling some inner termoils.

and what was perceived to be in scripture

I would be curious why it took 1500 years for the perception to change?

God Bless

 

[Addai]

Thank you…I believe then I was referencing “masor” and masoret, the fetter of the written Torah, and was it equally as authoritative as the Torah…The article does not differentiate or allude to any level of authority relative to Torah, whether the t in tradition is sometimes capital and sometimes not from our perspective or discission.

I think that kind of distinction comes some time after the Jewish counsel of Jamnia Ad 90. (Where Christianity and Judaism formerly parted ways, and the Talmud began to be compiled). And knowing Jewish theology it could easily be something that wasn’t defined until Medieval times or Renaissance times. But it’ something I will have to look into. (Studying classical Christianity in light of Jewish precedent is something of a hobby for me.)

 

[commenter]

Agree. just don’t capitalize tradition, but definitely capitalize the Holy Spirit within.

Actually we DO need to capitalize “tradition” at times, to differentiate that one percent of traditions defined by the Magisterium as authoritative - as Tradition.

The Bible mentions the Holy Spirit, but the Bible’s not at all clear as to part of the Holy Trinity, equal to the Father and Son.

On our particular road it may seem obvious that Holy Spirit should be capitalized, and that the JWs are on the wrong road, but this is obvious only in hindsight.

So I agree Holy Spirit should be capitalized, because I respect the agency that canonized Tradition, and then subordinates itself to the Holy Spirit.